MARIANNE MEANS Syndicated Hearst Columnist
Washington- The political struggle over abortion intrudes once again on an
issue crucial to the health of millions of Americans, pitting reverence for
undeveloped, unborn human tissue against potential advances in medical
treatment for living men, women and children.
In this case it is not the mental and physical well-being of a pregnant
woman that is endangered but that of victims suffering from Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's diseases, diabetes and other serious illnesses.
Where should compassion lie? With inanimate, non-breathing embryonic
stem cells or disabled and sick friends and family members needing medical
help? No contest, I say. Save the living.
Scientific evidence indicates that biomedical research on human
embryonic stem cells could lead to remedies for all sorts of life-threatening
human afflictions not now curable. Scientists do not consider the cells
themselves to be embryos because they can be extracted and isolated and have
not yet grown into the specialized matter that makes up muscles, nerves,
blood and organs. The potential for unprecedented medical miracles by
replacing diseased tissue with stem cells is astonishing.
But anti-abortion activists don't care about reality. They equate the
cells with an intact, full-term fetus and demand the same legal rights for
the cells as those granted a living person.
"Stem cell research is immoral," thunders Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, a
leading anti-abortion crusader.
Sen. Arlen Specter,R-Pa, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, define dignity and
morality differently. They say that stem cell research hold so much potential
that "it is morally wrong" to keep scientists from pursing it. Their priority
is in giving millions in pain the chance for a life-saving cure.
Caught in the emotional clamor are federal regulations, issued in
August, that require all stem cell research to be conducted under strict
ethical guidelines.
Under the rules, the microscopic clumps of cells must come from embryos
created in clinics for fertility treatment, and are due to be discarded
because they are no longer needed. Extra embryos are often created for
multiple in-vitro pregnancies attempts. Unless implanted in a woman, the
tissue cannot grow into a fetus. Using these spare embryos does not amount to
killing babies.
This has become a presidential campaign issue because the Senate is
considering a bill to allow government-sponsored scientists the freedom to
engage in embryonic stem cell research, so long as they follow the new
guidelines. For five years Congress has banned the use of taxpayer funds for
research that directly involves embryos. The basic progress in this area has
been made by privately sponsored scientists.
Specter and Harkin have held seven hearing on the issue and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott has promised a vote on the bill before Congress
adjourns this Fall.
As with other abortion-related issues, Vice President Al Gore and Gov.
George W. Bush are on opposite sides.
Gore firmly puts the disabled and ill first, favoring the extension and
funding of embryonic stem cell research. He does not believe that life begins
at conception but rather when the fetus "quickens" and has the potential of
living outside the mother. Consequently he supports the concept that abortion
should be an issue between a woman and her doctor.
Bush, by contrast, believes in life at conception and is firmly
anti-abortion, except if necessary to save the life of the mother. This
places him in the camp that opposes embryonic stem cell research.
But Bush say he supports the concept of federal help to expand medical
studies. He promised to "fund and lead a medical moon shot to reach far
beyond what seems possible today and discover new cures for age-old
afflictions." He said if elected president he would spend $91 billion to
promote federal research on a variety of diseases, including Alzheimer's.
His promise is a fraud, however, if he refuses to let scientists pursue
the most promising avenue to a "medical moon shot"-embryonic stem cell
research.
Do we live in a modern world of technological breakthroughs or a
medieval fortress trapped in religious dogma and intellectual ignorance? To
stop medical research on the grounds of ethical considerations not shared by
everyone would be a tragedy for those with diseases, but also for the rest of
us.
Marianne Means is Washington, D.C. columnist with Hearst Newspapers.
Copyright 2000 Hearst Newspapers.
***************************************************************
The stated position of the Presidential Candidate's for stem cell research:
Gore=For, Bush=Against.
Your vote counts! (If you don't vote, that counts too!)
Sid Levin
